There are some players in this draft at key positions of need that are technically sound (the obvious examples are at CB, Patrick Surtain, and at OT Rashawn Slater) and others who may have greater tools but have some glitches in technique that will have to be improved upon before they can realize their potential (such as CB Jaycee Horn, or Sam Cosmi at OT). San Francisco faces this question with the third pick in the draft: pick a more finished product with less upside (Mac Jones), or gamble on someone with more physical tools (Trey Lance, or Justin Fields) but lower floors, if they can't make significant progress as pros.
With our past coaching staffs, it may have made sense to favor players who had already proven themselves in college. But if you trust the current coaching staff, does it make more sense to be more willing to swing for the fences, and choose the physically superior but rawer prospect? I strongly suspect that is what the 9ers will do, because they trust that Shanahan can develop the QB they select.
Of course, it's not just physical tools. A prospect must have the right mental makeup, to be motivated to put in the time and study to become great. And as fans, we rarely get the information necessary to evaluate that part of the picture. But if we hired Staley because he is a fantastic teacher, and his choices for staff reflect his teaching philosophy, should we be drafting rawer but more physically gifted prospects?
Maybe it also depends upon the team's situation. If the team is missing only a couple of pieces to make a strong Super Bowl push, maybe the more ready prospect with less physical upside makes sense. If the window doesn't look like it will swing wide open for another year or two, more gambles on greatness might be the wiser choice.
So should we prefer players who can play almost immediately, or those who are rawer but with more upside?
With our past coaching staffs, it may have made sense to favor players who had already proven themselves in college. But if you trust the current coaching staff, does it make more sense to be more willing to swing for the fences, and choose the physically superior but rawer prospect? I strongly suspect that is what the 9ers will do, because they trust that Shanahan can develop the QB they select.
Of course, it's not just physical tools. A prospect must have the right mental makeup, to be motivated to put in the time and study to become great. And as fans, we rarely get the information necessary to evaluate that part of the picture. But if we hired Staley because he is a fantastic teacher, and his choices for staff reflect his teaching philosophy, should we be drafting rawer but more physically gifted prospects?
Maybe it also depends upon the team's situation. If the team is missing only a couple of pieces to make a strong Super Bowl push, maybe the more ready prospect with less physical upside makes sense. If the window doesn't look like it will swing wide open for another year or two, more gambles on greatness might be the wiser choice.
So should we prefer players who can play almost immediately, or those who are rawer but with more upside?
Comment